Background
This case arose from an appeal by St. Michael Pharmaceuticals Ltd against an order of certiorari granted by the Federal High Court to quash a product registration certificate issued to it by the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC). The case highlights the jurisdiction issues surrounding the granting of certiorari in a legal context where a product license was contested amid ongoing litigation.
Facts
The appellant, St. Michael Pharmaceuticals Ltd, was issued a product license for a drug known as ‘Maloxine’. Moore Associates Ltd, the first respondent, sought judicial review against NAFDAC, arguing that the issuance of the license was improper due to ongoing legal disputes about the product's registration. The Federal High Court granted the order sought by Moore Associates, prompting St. Michael to appeal on the grounds of jurisdiction and the nature of the action as merely administrative.
Issues
The core issues determined by the Court of Appeal were:
- Whether the Federal High Court had jurisdiction to grant an order of certiorari despite the absence of legal conditions necessary for its issuance.
- The distinction between administrative actions and judicial or quasi-judicial acts.
Ratio Decidendi
The court concluded that certiorari is limited to actions that are judicial or quasi-judicial, and not purely administrative actions. The appeal was allowed as the Federal High Court erroneously assumed jurisdiction when it awarded the order of certiorari without the necessary conditions being met.
Court Findings
The Court of Appeal identified that:
- Certiorari lies against judicial or quasi-judicial acts, which involve a mandatory duty to act fairly and observe the principles of natural justice. Conversely, the approval of drug registrations by NAFDAC is an administrative act and does not engage certiorari.
- There was no inter partes lis (dispute before two parties) that would invoke the need for a judicial review of the NAFDAC decision.
- It reiterated the principle of 'pendente lite nihil innovetur' (nothing should change during the pendency of litigation) but concluded that this does not justify judicial review when the actions in question are administrative.
Conclusion
The court concluded that the order for certiorari granted by the lower court was unjustified, as the actions taken by NAFDAC were administrative in nature and did not require the court’s review under the principles governing certiorari. Therefore, the appeal was upheld.
Significance
This judgment clarifies the boundaries of judicial review within Nigerian administrative law, particularly the demarcation between purely administrative decisions and those requiring adherence to judicial standards of fairness and due process. Consequently, the decision serves as a critical reference for future cases involving certiorari and the scope of administrative powers.